Re: Re[2]: [Exim] blocking blank from addresses

rwelty@??? said:
> there's some good stuff in 2142 about required mailboxes (e.g.,
> abuse@???) but it stalled at Proposed Standard some years
> back, and doesn't seem to have any prospect of advancing to just plain
> "Standard". one of the things that rfc-ignorant.org is big on is
> RFC2142 compliance.

IIRC my reading of it was that _if_ you provide a service for people to
report abuse, it should be contactable via an abuse@ address. Not that
there must be such a service.

--
dwmw2